07 Oct '10 06:16>
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI still can't seem to see that tree. Which part of this did I not address?
The drive can be explained, can be readily fit with an evolutionary model of life. What cannot be explained--- what hasn't even been stabbed at yet--- is why a person with such an obvious drive as SH would openly admit that this drive isn't enough to satisfy, isn't enough to quench his thirst.
Counter-intuitively, he states that the drive for knowledge ...[text shortened]... es the warmth derived from the relational aspects of those connections.
Not duty, love.
Love is basically social behavior. You may notice that we tend to love those who either share our genes or are likely to assist us in passing on our genes. In fact there is a very clear trend in how we dish out our love ie we love according to what percentage of genes we share. Evolution explains this very well. Theism does not explain it at all. Theism usually takes love to be axiomatic.
You are not actually presenting any argument. You simply state it is 'counter intuitive' or 'curious' yet it seems that it is only counter intuitive to you. Everyone else seems to think it is obvious. So you need to present an argument or at least an explanation as to why you think evolution would not lead to love.